Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 27, 2015, 01:59:22 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 84
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who would you rather have as president? on: March 26, 2015, 05:50:43 pm
Even though I am definitely not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz is probably the politician that I disagree with the most ideologically.
2  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Election night 1968, American Independent v Communist on: March 26, 2015, 05:49:28 pm
I would not support either of them at all under any circumstances.
3  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Lindsey Graham on: March 26, 2015, 07:06:54 am
Hilarious, FF.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Re: Realistic Jack Fellure/Jeff Boss Election on: March 25, 2015, 08:03:08 pm
I know that Jack Fellure would perform very well in parts of the South, as he supports the criminalization of homosexuality, the elimination of the pornography industry, and feels that most of the problems that the U.S. faces can be blamed on the "atheists, Marxists, liberals, queers, liars, draft dodgers, flag burners, dope addicts, sex perverts and anti-Christians."

On the other hand, Jeff Boss would likely do well in some of the very liberal states such as New York, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois and Maryland due to his strong support of progressive causes and might also due good in some of the left-leaning libertarian states such as Washington and Oregon due to his strong stances against the Patriot Act and the NSA.

Overall, I don't think that etiher one of them would have a chance in the general election and feel that an independent ticket comprised of Jon Huntsman/Evan Bayh would end up winning the election by a comfortable margin id Jack Fellure was the Republican nominee and if Jeff Boss was the Democratic nominee.
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Most Partisan Posters from Both Major Parties on: March 25, 2015, 11:37:40 am
Democrats: OC, BRTD, Lief, pbrower, Icespear, HockeyDude, Illini, Miles, bedstuy
Republicans: Keystone Phil, Torie, Krazen, Heatmaster, Oldiesfreak1854, Reaganfan, bobbolaw

I agree that there is noting wrong with being partisan towards one political party and actually feel that many of our more partisan posters are extremely well-informed and contribute positively to the forum overall.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Election Night 2020: Scenario President Cruz re-elected on: March 25, 2015, 06:49:28 am
I would have no reaction, because I would have died fighting house to house in the streets of Tehran months earlier.
Unfortunately with a President Cruz in office, we might also see U.S. Troops fighting house to house in the streets of Moscow, Caracas, Bejing and Pyongyang as well.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Cruz Win Any Primaries or Cauci on: March 24, 2015, 04:06:25 pm
Here are the states that I think Ted Cruz has a chance of winning in the Republican Primary (even then it might be a bit generous for him):
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Potential Running Mates for Cruz on: March 23, 2015, 08:11:34 pm
Tom Cotton, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Mike Lee, Nikki Haley, Mary Fallin, Sam Brownback, Paul LePage, Jim Inhofe, Jeff Sessions, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Allen West would all be plausible picks for Ted Cruz's runnnng mate in addition to the fantastic and unconventional choices that Lief listed earlier in the thread.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Election Night 2020: Scenario President Cruz re-elected on: March 23, 2015, 06:19:43 pm
Go to "Election Atlas Forum"
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2018 Republican Supermajority? on: March 23, 2015, 01:23:47 pm
I think that it might be possible for the Republicans to come close to having a supermajority after the 2018 midterms. My gut feeling is that in 2016 the Democrats will pick up Illinois, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Ohio while the Republicans will pick up Nevada and Colorado, resulting in a 52-48 Republican majority. In 2018, I feel that the Republicans will easily pick up Missouri, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. The Republicans also have a chance at picking up Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania if they play their cards right as well. If the Democrats lose all of those seats, the Republicans would have exactly 60 Senate seats.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Election night 2016:Ted Cruz declared the winner. What is your reaction? on: March 22, 2015, 06:50:28 pm
I would be extremely unhappy about the results, but probably won't let it bother me all that much and move on with my life.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: In a 49 state landslide can Hillary carry... on: March 22, 2015, 06:42:33 pm
In a 49-state landslide for the Democrats, the lone holdout state would probably be Oklahoma.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz to announce presidential candidacy on Monday on: March 22, 2015, 06:39:18 pm
I think you guys are seriously underestimating Cruz. Of all the candidates with a chance, save maybe Paul, he has the most devoted supporters.

He probably won't get the nomination, but yeah he should have some consistent support levels. Maybe 2008 Huckabee would be a good comparison.
That would mean Cruz winning the Iowa caucus, which would be a terrible event in the history of this nation.
My gut feeling is that Scott Walker will end up barely winning the Iowa caucuses, though I do feel that Ted Cruz will end up winning almost all of the Southern states (except Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Florida and maybe South Carolina) and maybe a few of the Western states in the Republican primaries.
14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Top 3 Congressional Defeats from both parties since WW2 on: March 20, 2015, 10:19:56 am
Worst Senate Defeats
Democrats:
2014
1994
1980

Republicans:
2008
1986
1958

Worst House Defeats
Democrats:
2010
1994
Tie between 1942 and 1966

Republicans:
2006
1974
Tie between 1958 and 1948
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Name the next three U.S. Presidents on: March 20, 2015, 09:43:01 am
Clinton
Cotton
Some Democrat who nobody knows/cares about now
Do you have Tom Cotton winning in 2020 or 2024?
16  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: US Representative(s) Previous Poster is Most Like on: March 20, 2015, 07:02:48 am
Possibly either Collin Peterson, Jim Cooper or Brad Ashford.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery on: March 20, 2015, 06:57:47 am
Netanyahu has just sent the message that Israel does not want peace and does not want to negotiate.

He's just given the Palestinians an opening to throw up their hands once and for all and act unilaterally. The US response to Palestine's push for greater international recognition is that their statehood should come through negotiations with Israel. But Israel will not negotiate.

I'd expect more EU countries will go the way of Sweden and establish full diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine. You may see a push for economic sanctions on Israel, similar to the ones imposed on South Africa in the 1980s. Israel will continue down the path of right wing identity politics and insist that they are only defending themselves against "terrorists" - not unlike South Africa's fever paranoia about how the blacks were going to turn the place into a Soviet satellite.

Things will get worse for Israel's Arab population. As the Orthodox community and the settler community grow in political power, Netanyahu and whoever succeeds him will likely keep doubling down on current policies.

Israel's future as a fortified, isolated pariah state was already foreshadowed with Netanyahu's rhetoric. His nonsensical ramblings about "foreign influence" seeking to undermine him during the election sounded more like something a Third World despot would say before a ceremonial sham election than anything you'd hear from the leader of a country that likes to think it's a Western democracy.

Obama should instruct Samantha Power to abstain from any UN Security Council votes relating to Israel for the rest of his term. If the Israeli people want to reelect a man who comes to America, embarrasses our president and rhetorically spits in our face, they no longer deserve any protection from the heaping of scorn and retribution that the international community has been wanting to unleash on them.

Elections have consequences. Israel voted for it and now they deserve to get it good and hard.
Amen.
I was going to add this post as well.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Describe a Harvey Milk/Mike Huckabee voter on: March 19, 2015, 01:11:00 pm
Maybe CountryClassSF?
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Al Gore 2000=Richard Nixon 1960? on: March 19, 2015, 01:10:18 pm
Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

I think it's quite clear why he won, going by statistics collected in Erika Shaker's book "Great Expectations" comparing American attitudes between 1992 and 2000. The results are...unpleasant. Here's a sampler:

-In 1992, 16% of Americans believed non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate. By 2000, it was 25%

-34% of Americans believed a widely advertised product was probably good in 1992. In 2000, it was 45%.

-In 1992, 66% of Americans discussed local issues with other people. That number was 34% in 2000.

-36% of Americans believed that men should be heads of their household in 1992. In 2000, that number was 49%.

-The number of Americans who believed that violence is a normal part of life rose from 9% in 1992 to 31% in 2000.

-The number who believed that violence is an acceptable way to meet your goals rose from 14% in 1992 to 26% in 2000.

-In 1992, 72% of Americans considered defending the environment a priority. In 2000, 57% did.

-American's time spent watching television increased from 35% to 40% between 1992 and 2000.

-65% of Americans considered materialism a threat to society in 1992. In 2000, that number was 48%.

- In 2000 34% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992.

I could go on, but you get the point. Something about the Clinton presidency caused a shift from relatively progressive attitudes toward reactionary conservatism and shallowness. This is why Bush was elected.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

The 1994 Republican Revolution probably had something to do with that and Gingrich Uniting the Conservatives to Witch hunt anybody who's not a Republican. Remember in 1992 the Conservatives got divided between Bush and Perot and Gingrich brought them back together
I agree with you on that point, though I also feel that the rise of conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the introduction of more ideologically driven cable news channels such as MSNBC and Fox News helped to make the political and sociological debates of the 1990s much more negative when compared to prior eras.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Describe a Franklin Pierce/Dukakis voter on: March 18, 2015, 11:30:14 am
A New England Democrat born in the 1820s who was cryogenically frozen after the 1852 election and thawed out right in time for the 1988 election.

How did one cryogenically freeze in 1853?
I admit that the part about cryogenic freezing was a joke on my part spoofing the initial question posed in the thread. Realistically, someone who would have voted for both Franklin Pierce and Michael Dukakis would likely come from a New England family that voted straight Democratic from 1852-1988 with the possible exceptions of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Name the next three U.S. Presidents on: March 18, 2015, 10:05:28 am
Hillary Clinton/Martin Heinrich (2017-21)*
Rand Paul/Larry Hogan (2021-29)
Larry Hogan/Cory Gardner (2029-33)
**

*opts not to run for reelection.
**loses reelection due to effects of a minor recession occurring in 2030-31.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Libertarian GOP vs. Technocratic Democratic Party on: March 18, 2015, 09:58:10 am
Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

Nixon, Ford and Carter all signed deregulation bills, and each time it was a disaster (especially trucking deregulation) and worsened the economy. So, I don't accept there was hyper-regulation when he took office; he merely added more poison to cure the disease. He was expanding the policies of his predecessors.

Reagan tax cuts simply enriched corporations, who have had ridiculously token tax ever since. What helped the economy was when credit was loosened in 1983-1984 and a bubble formed for a few years. It had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, and in any case, many of the jobs created in the eighties were low-wage, burger-flipping jobs that had no health care, sick leave or pension.

It's interesting how people keep claiming that Reagan ended the Cold War. How? By aiding  the Contra terrorists? By bombing Libya pointlessly? By supporting Saddam Hussein? By supporting Khmer Rouge? By running drugs? The only halfway possible explanation I've ever heard is that the SDI was meant to bankrupt the Soviets. If that was the case, then it was simply more "secret government" scheming that just got lucky.

What is perhaps is the biggest problem with Reagan is that he added absolutely nothing to the debate. Neoliberal economics had already been gradually adopted since Nixon, tax cuts had been in the political realm since Truman, and his foreign policy goals were consistent with other Cold War presidents. He has no legacy, and it's time this be admitted.


He ended the Cold War becuase he put pressure on the Soivets to spend more and more even though they cant as they have no free market plus he aided the Rebels in Afganistan which bankrupted the Soviet Union.

The Soviet economy had been crashing since at least 1971. And Carter started aid to the rebels. Speaking of which, the end result of Carter-Reagan Afghanistan aid was this:



So, I take back my last paragraph. Reagan has a legacy after all.

I think the Cold War was going to be a victory since Nixon brought China to the US side which put lots of pressure on the Soviets to try to get as many Neutral countries on their side which let Reagan have the Green Light to Spend More on New Weapons which forced the Soviets to do so as well while being mired in Afganistan bankrupting them. So yes Reagan desrves some credit but not as much as he gets.

Ill just leave it at this

Reagan is ranked 11th by historians
Clinton is ranked 8th

Pretty Good


Here's the Source for that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/16/new-ranking-of-u-s-presidents-puts-lincoln-1-obama-18-kennedy-judged-most-over-rated/

 
My major concern about the list is the fact that Andrew Jackson is ranked as one of the greatest Presidents.
23  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Predict who will still be in the Senate in 25 years. on: March 18, 2015, 06:51:58 am
Tom Cotton (unfortunately)
Ted Cruz (unfortunately)
Gary Peters
Brian Schatz
Chris Coons
James Lankford
Ben Sasse
Shelly Moore Capito
Chris Murphy
Martin Heinrich (assuming that he is not elected as Vice President in 2016)
Tim Scott
Mike Lee (unfortunately)
Kirsten Gillibrand

I don't see Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis surviving past 2020 and ultimately see Cory Gardner serving only 2 terms. Also, assuming that Maggie Hassan, Kamala Harris and Tammy Duckworth are elected in 2016 and if Ann Wagner, Bill Haslam and Evan Jenkins get elected in 2018, then they will all still be in office 25 years from now.
24  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Tom Cotton on: March 16, 2015, 10:34:19 am
Massive HP. Tom Cotton is one of the worst Senators of the 114th Congress (along with Ted Cruz, Thom Tillis, Mike Lee, Joni Ernst, Jeff Sessions and Jim Inhofe)
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Describe a Franklin Pierce/Dukakis voter on: March 16, 2015, 10:12:48 am
A New England Democrat born in the 1820s who was cryogenically frozen after the 1852 election and thawed out right in time for the 1988 election.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 84


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines